Allahabad High Court
Nagar Nigam Agra Through Chief ... vs Apna Adarsh Co-Operative And 9 Others on 15 October, 2025
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:184454
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SECOND APPEAL No. - 659 of 2025
Nagar Nigam Agra Through Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Nigam
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Apna Adarsh Co-Operative And 9 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
J. N. Maurya
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Mahesh Kumar
With
SECOND APPEAL No. - 752 of 2025
State of UP Through its Collector
?..Appellant(s)
Versus
Apna Adarsh Co-operative and 8 others
?..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Kunal Ravi Singh, S.C.
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. These two second appeals filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.23, Agra in Civil Appeal No.14 of 2023 and Civil Appeal No.8 of 2024.
2. Civil Appeal No.14 of 2023 was filed by the State of U.P. through its Collector, while Civil Appeal No.8 of 2024 was filed by Nagar Nigam, Agra against the judgment of the trial Court. Second Appeal No.659 of 2025 has been preferred by Nagar Nigam, Agra dismissing the Civil Appeal No.8 of 2024, while Second Appeal No.752 of 2025 has been filed by the State dismissing the Civil Appeal No.14 of 2023.
3. Facts, in nutshell, are that the plaintiff-respondent no.1- Apna Adarsh Co-operative Society had instituted a suit for possession as well as sought relief of permanent injunction against Nagar Nigam, Agra which was registered as Original Suit No.66 of 1998. The Nagar Nigam, Agra contested the suit and filed its written statement denying the contents of plaintiff and in para 22 of its additional plea set up a case that Khewat No.1-G belongs to Nagar Nigam, Agra and Khewat No.1-B belongs to Collector, Agra. Written statement was filed in the year February, 1999. It was also contended that Khewat No.79 (formerly Khasra No.423-M, 426-M and 427-M) never belonged to Elahibaks alone, and he was only a co-owner. In the year 2008, the State was also impleaded as one of the defendant in the suit. The trial Court framed the following issues:-
"1. ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ???
2. ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????????? ??? 1 ?? ??o 30 ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? 26.1.1926 ?? ?? ?? ???
3. ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ????
4. ???? ???? ??? 737 ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ???
5. ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ????
6. ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??????????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???
7. ???? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????????? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ????
8. ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ???
9. ???? ??? ???? 571 ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ???
10. ???? ??? ???? 38 ? 41 ??????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???
11. ???? ??????? ???? ???? ??0 79 ?? ???? ???
12. ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ????
13. ???? ??? ???????? ???
14. ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ???
15. ???? ???? ???? ???? 7 ???? 11 ????????? ?? ????? ???
16. ???? ???? ???? ???? 23 ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ???
17. ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???
18. ???? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ????????????? ??????? ???? ???
19. ???? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ????????? ??? ???? (????? ??? ?????????? ?????) ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??, ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????, ???? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ??? 29? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???????
20. ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? 9 ????????? ?? ????? ???
21. ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? 1956 ?? ???????? ?? ????? ???
22: ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???"
4. Issue no.1 was in regard to ownership of the property in dispute. The trial Court while deciding the said issue along with issues no.2, 3 and 11 found that Elahibaks was the owner in possession of Khasra No.423-M, 426-M & 427-M and half of the property was transferred thereafter to plaintiff-respondent no.1. The suit for possession as well as injunction was decreed on 20.12.2022, against which, two civil appeals, one by the State being Civil Appeal No.14 of 2023 and other by Nagar Nigam, Agra being Civil Appeal No.8 of 2024 were filed. Both the appeals were connected and following points of determination was framed by the lower appellate Court:-
"1-???? ??????? ???? ???? ??0-79 ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ????????? ??0-1 ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ??0-66/1998 ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ??0-1, 2, 3 ??? 11 ?? ??????????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???
2-???? ???? ??0 737/- ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????????? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ??0-66 1998 ??? ?????? ????????? ??0-4 ??? 5 ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???"
5. First point of determination before the lower appellate Court was as to whether the land of Khewat No.79 belonged to the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 i.e. Nagar Nigam, Agra was its tenant. The said point of determination was decided by the lower appellate Court holding that respondent no.1 was the tenant of the plaintiff who had purchased the property in dispute from Elahibaks. Both the appeals were dismissed by judgment dated 16.04.2025, hence the present second appeals.
6. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that in both the appeals filed by Nagar Nigam as well as State, ground was taken that the land of Khewat No.1-B and 1-G belonged to State as well as Nagar Nigam. According to him, Khewat No.79 is a nazul land and the owner is the Collector and the findings recorded by both the trial Court as well as appellate Court is not in conformity with the stand taken by the State. He has further contended that no finding has been recorded by trial Court as well as appellate Court as to whether the property in dispute has been recorded as nazul land and the Collector is owner or not.
7. Sri Umesh Vats, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submits that finding has been recorded by both the Courts below as to the ownership of Elahibaks of 1926, and the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.1. According to him, Nagar Nigam was the tenant of Elahibaks which continued, and Nagar Nigam has also accepted in other proceedings that efforts are being made for expunging the name of the State from the revenue records demonstrating that it is a nazul land. He also submits that in the earlier litigation the property has been proposed to be purchased by the State Government.
8. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. From perusal of the issues framed by the trial Court in regard to ownership of the property in dispute, I find that vague findings have been recorded without going into depth and reading the written statement filed by the defendant no.1 and 3 i.e. Nagar Nigam as well as State. The case set up by the Collector/State is that the land is recorded as nazul land and no ownership can vest in Elahibaks. The sale deed executed subsequently in favour of respondent no.1 is in teeth of the fact that the land is recorded as nazul land and the owner is Collector.
10. It seems that the trial Court was swayed away by the fact that the sale deed of 1926 records the name of Elahibaks who let out the property to Nagar Nigam and on the basis of some agreement, he has proceeded to decree the suit for possession and permanent injunction without recording any finding as to the fact that whether the land is recorded as nazul land or not.
11. In the civil appeal filed by the State as well as Nagar Nigam, specific ground was taken as to the land having been vested in the State Government and recorded as nazul land and no title would accrue in favour of plaintiff or Elahibaks.
12. The appellate Court while framing first point of determination has only framed that whether the disputed land of Khewat No.79 belongs to the plaintiff or not, and whether the defendant no.1 is the tenant of the said land or not. The appellate Court should have framed the point of determination as to the fact that whether Khewat No.79 was a nazul land or not and name of Collector, Agra was recorded in the revenue record or not. Specific findings should have been recorded by the appellate Court on the ground raised by the State as well as Nagar Nigam, Agra in their appeal. The appellate Court also got carried away with the findings recorded by the trial Court and solely on the basis of agreement so executed and sale deed placed before the Court by the plaintiff held the plaintiff to be the owner of land in dispute.
13. Once, the State has come up with a plea that Khewat No.79 was a nazul land and the Collector, Agra in his written statement has taken plea as to the land being a nazul property, he should have either got it surveyed or demarcated or identification of the land should have been carried out through documents or survey before arriving at any finding. Both the appellate Court as well as trial Court had committed gross illegality in not issuing survey commission when the dispute was in regard to nature of land as to whether it was a nazul land or not.
14. In view of the said fact, judgment and decree dated 16.04.2025 passed by the appellate Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate Court to frame fresh point of determination in regard to ownership of Khewat No.79 (Khasra No.423-M, 426-M and 427-M), Chak Awwal Shahar Sawad Agra, Sadar Bhatti, Agra.
15. The appellate Court shall also take into consideration the written statement filed by the Collector, Agra in the year 2011. The State is also permitted to bring on record the documents to substantiate the pleadings made in the written statement demonstrating the land in question to be nazul land.
16. Appellate Court after framing point of determination shall make every effort to decide the matter without granting any adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
17. Both the appeals are partly allowed.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
October 15, 2025
SK Goswami
